Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 62, Issue 5, pp 492–500 | Cite as

Public Internet Data Mining Methods in Instructional Design, Educational Technology, and Online Learning Research

  • Royce Kimmons
  • George Veletsianos
Original Paper

Abstract

We describe the benefits and challenges of engaging in public data mining methods and situate our discussion in the context of studies that we have conducted. Practical, methodological, and scholarly benefits include the ability to access large amounts of data, randomize data, conduct both quantitative and qualitative analyses, connect educational issues with broader issues of concern, identify subgroups/subpopulations of interest, and avoid many biases. Technical, methodological, professional, and ethical issues that arise by engaging in public data mining methods include the need for multifaceted expertise and rigor, focused research questions and determining meaning, and performative and contextual considerations of public data. As the scientific complexity facing research in instructional design, educational technology, and online learning is expanding, it is necessary to better prepare students and scholars in our field to engage with emerging research methodologies.

Keywords

Public internet data mining Innovative methods 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not report on a study with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

Royce Kimmons declares that he has no conflict of interest. George Veletsianos declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andersen, D. G., & Feamster, N. (2006). Challenges and opportunities in Internet data mining. Parallel Data Laboratory, Carnegie Mellon University, Research Report CMU-PDL-06-102. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8105/56e5f248e93f56e2ede855662fde9fad454d.pdf
  2. Baker, R. S., & Inventado, P. S. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In R. S. Baker & P. S. Inventado (Eds.), Learning analytics (pp. 61–75). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Brownstein, J. S., Freifeld, C. C., Reis, B. Y., & Mandl, K. D. (2008). Surveillance Sans Frontieres: Internet-based emerging infectious disease intelligence and the HealthMap project. PLoS Medicine, 5(7), e151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, J., Kimmons, R., Short, C. R., Clements, K., & Staples, M. E. (under review). Crossing the professional-personal divide: Teachers using twitter as a platform for expression and sharing.Google Scholar
  5. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elm, M. S. (2008). How do various notions of privacy influence decisions in qualitative internet research? In A. N. Markham & N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Ess, C., & Jones, S. (2002). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Retrieved from http://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
  8. Kimmons, R. (2014). Social networking sites, literacy, and the authentic identity problem. TechTrends, 58(2), 93–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0740-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kimmons, R. (2015). Open online system adoption in K-12 as a democratizing factor. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 30(2), 138–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kimmons, R. (2017). Open to all? Nationwide evaluation of high-priority web accessibility considerations among higher education websites. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29, 434–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2014). The fragmented educator 2.0: Social networking sites, acceptable identity fragments, and the identity constellation. Computers & Education, 72, 292–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2015). Teacher professionalization in the age of social networking sites. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 480–501.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.933846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2016). Education scholars' evolving uses of Twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 445–464.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kimmons, R., McGuire, K., Stauffer, M., Jones, J. E., Gregson, M., & Austin, M. (2017a). Religious identity, expression, and civility in social media: Results of data mining Latter-day Saint Twitter accounts. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(3), 637–657.Google Scholar
  15. Kimmons, R., Veletsianos, G., & Woodward, S. (2017b). Institutional uses of Twitter in U.S. higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 42(2), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krutka, D., Kimmons, R., Harding, T., & Harker, Z. (under review). Speaking out on twitter: Understanding teachers’ expressed sociopolitical sentiments to improve policy making.Google Scholar
  17. Maloof, M. A. (2006). Machine learning and data mining for computer security: methods and applications. London: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  18. Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee (Version 2.0). Retrieved from http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
  19. Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Institutes of Health (2018). I am an investigator. Retrieved from https://humansubjects.nih.gov/walkthrough-investigator
  21. Niwa, S., Doi, T., & Honiden, S. (2006). Web page recommender system based on folksonomy mining for itng ‘06 submissions. In Information Technology: New Generations, 2006. ITNG 2006. Third International Conference on (pp. 388-393). IEEE.Google Scholar
  22. Paskevicius, M., Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2018). Content is king: An analysis of how the Twitter discourse surrounding open education unfolded from 2009 to 2016. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 116–137.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3267
  23. Romero-Hall, E., Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2018). Social media use by instructional design departments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 86–98.Google Scholar
  24. Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Selwyn, N. (2015). Data entry: towards the critical study of digital data and education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sharf, B. F. (1998). Beyond netiquette the ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Taylor, J., & Pagliari, C. (2017). Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559.
  28. Veletsianos, G. (2017a). Toward a Generalizable Understanding of Twitter and Social Media Use Across MOOCs: Who Participates on MOOC Hashtags and In What Ways? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Veletsianos, G. (2017b). Three Cases of Hashtags Used as Learning and Professional Development Environments. TechTrends, 61(3), 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked Participatory Scholarship: Emergent Techno-Cultural Pressures Toward Open and Digital Scholarship in Online Networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2016). Scholars in an increasingly digital and open world: How do education professors and students use Twitter? The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., Shaw, A. G., Pasquini, L., & Woodward, S. (2017). Selective openness, branding, broadcasting, and promotion: Twitter use in Canada's public universities. Educational Media International, 54(1), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1324363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., Larsen, R., Dousay, T., & Lowenthal, P. (in press). Public Comment Sentiment on Educational Videos: Understanding the Effects of Presenter Gender, Video Format, Threading, and Moderation on YouTube TED Talks. PLoS One.Google Scholar
  34. Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., Belikov, O., Johnson, N. (under review). Scholars’ Temporal Participation on, Temporary Disengagement from, and Return to Twitter.Google Scholar
  35. Wang, M., Madhyastha, T., Chan, N. H., Papadimitriou, S., & Faloutsos, C. (2002). Data mining meets performance evaluation: Fast algorithms for modeling bursty traffic. In Data Engineering, 2002. Proceedings. 18th International Conference on (pp. 507-516). IEEE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Royal Roads UniversityVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations